Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph?
10-29-2010, 11:31 AM (This post was last modified: 10-29-2010 01:29 PM by sheep wrecked.)
RE: Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph?
(10-29-2010 08:44 AM)sari83 Wrote: I guess I was willing to accept that the Mark 16:9-20 verses were added at a later time because they single handedly contain one of the most bizarre readings.
What people do in response to reading the Bible does not make it truth.
We know that what Mark spoke of came to pass because a deadly viper crawled on Paul's hand and he was not harmed. Many people were healed at the hands of the apostles, so we know that came to pass. Many signs and wonders were done by the apostles, so we know that the "deadly drink" was probably fulfilled as well.
The signs and wonders of the apostles is long gone, but a rather large segment of Christianity is still trying to operate in them. All of the incidents of healings and signs have been done under the umbrella of false doctrines and heresy since the first century. The latest wave [Charismatic/Pentecostal] that was started in the 1800s is just another in a long line of men believing *they* have resurrected the sign gifts. Therefore; what people believe and do does not make it of God.
Quote:I believe the original texts of the NT are the inspired Word of God. Anything added later would not fall under this authority. For example, we know the book of Mark was added to. It did not originally contain verses 16:9-20. Therefore it's also possible that the birth of Jesus in the books of Matthew and Luke may have been modified.
That is the opinion of suprious "scholars" seeking to discredit the Word of God. We no longer have the "original" documents, so how can they base this concept on something that does not exist and cannot be proven? What we have are 5000 mss that match very well from all over the Greek world in the early centuries AD - and this is how we got the NT. It is was not a conspiracy to "modify" the text. If one looks at the quotes of the early church writers [100+AD] the entire NT can be put together. It is pure fallacy that the NT has been messed with and changed after 325AD [Counsel of Nicea].
What has been changed are the modern translations who have relied on the corrupt Alexandrian family of manuscripts of which there are only 3 pushed by Westcott and Hort who are proven occultists. One of the Alexandrian includes the last passage of Mark, btw. So that leaves only 2 that don't.
1 John 5:9-13 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. 10. He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11. And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
Quote:The book of Enoch contains many similar sayings that are found in Matthew. Also the book of Jude bears witness to Enoch's prophecies.
The Book of Enoch was compiled about 300BC. It is not known who the author is. For sure it was not Enoch. The Dead Sea Scrolls have a few fragments of Enoch in Greek, none in Hebrew. and that is all we have of the "original".
Quote:Enoch, Book of Apocryphal Jewish book that has influenced the kabbalistic tradition and is considered part of the Merkabah mystical literature. There are three versions of The Book of Enoch. The Ethiopian version was first discovered by the Scottish explorer James Bruce in 1773 and is the text most commonly republished. The second version, titled The Book of the Secrets of Enoch, is a Slavonic text and was found in the Belgrade public library by Professor Sokolov in 1886; and English translation was issued in 1896. The Hebrew Enoch, identified as Enoch III, was translated by Hugo Odeberg in 1928. Some versions of Enoch III include lists of the magical names and magical formulae ascribed to the important archangel Metratron, who is regarded by contemporary occultists as the ruler of Kether, the first sephirah on the kabbalistic Tree of Life.
The Book of Enoch was “smoothed” to reflect Jude, as no original translation exists and the translations of it have been dated back to the middles ages [long after the first century]. The Book of Enoch is associated with necromancy [contacting the dead, forbidden in both OT and NT] and angelic transmissions [automatic writing] in the 16th century. It has rather spurious connotations and is used primarily in the occultic and mystic venues due to the proliferation of angelic appearances, angel rankings and names, an angelic language said to spoken to Enoch, magic incantations, and mystical concepts within it. The Book of Enoch also contradicts the OT. The Book of Enoch [or Watchers] is based in myths and legends.
Enoch 1:9,10 And behold! He cometh with ten thousands of His holy ones to execute judgement upon all, And to destroy all the ungodly: And to convict all flesh of all the works of their ungodliness which they have ungodly committed, and of all the hard things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him.
Jude 1:14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his saints, to execute judgment on all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
Please note these differences:
* Enoch – “He cometh” [The Holy Great One]; Jude – “The Lord cometh”.
* Enoch – “His holy ones” [referring to the angels – Enoch 14:23; 60:4]; Jude – “His saints” [referring to believers].
* Enoch – adds “and to destroy all the ungodly”. Enoch – “to convict all flesh”; Jude – “to convince all that are ungodly”.
I have a complete list of all the Enoch frags found at Qumran, the translations, and official listings from the Israel Antiquities Authority.
Quote:The Gospel of Thomas also contains many similar sayings to that of Matthew, and is referenced by Hippolytus of Rome (A.D. 222-235) and Origen of Alexandria (A.D. 233). In the 4th century, Cyril of Jerusalem mentioned a "Gospel of Thomas" twice in his Catechesis.
The gospel of Thomas is known as a gnostic gospel. There are about 80+ gnostic gospels having been so-called written by Jesus followers. They have all be proven to be false - written long after the first century.
Info on the gospel of Thomas:
Quote:In 1945, an archaeological excavation at Nag Hammadi in Central Egypt yielded a collection of 13 papyrus codices (books) totaling over 1,100 pages. One of these contained the “Gospel of Thomas” in the Coptic language. In this form it dates from about A.D. 350.
|Messages In This Thread|
RE: Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph? - strefanash - 01-08-2009, 04:49 AM
RE: Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph? - strefanash - 01-08-2009, 11:59 AM
RE: Virgin Birth or Son of Joseph? - sheep wrecked - 10-29-2010 11:31 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)